Main Navigation

NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site

Your browser does not support playing audio, please use the download link

* What's a Binding Site and How Long to Evolve a Change? Real Science Radio co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart describe a binding site, which is a place on a protein or even on a DNA or RNA strand, where other molecules can attach, somewhat like the shuttle docking to the space station. How many different binding sites exist in a human being? The current estimate of thousands may eventually be seen as too small by an order of magnitude. (And in all of nature there are more than a millions species with a myriad of different proteins and endless reams of DNA sequences, with countless binding sites scattered throughout.) According to an article at the National Institutes of Health, it would take 100 million years by a Darwinian process to change a single binding site in the human genome. Oops. Supposedly ALL OF UNIQUE HUMAN EVOLUTION from small Australopithecus chimp-like creatures to Homo sapiens has happened in only five million years. Then how could it take 100 million years just to change a binding site?

* This is yet another nail in Charles Darwin's coffin: that lies beneath Westminster Abbey. This 2008 NIH article abstract shows 100 million years to get a particular binding site change by mutation within humans, but only a few million years in fruit flies. And this great ID article by Douglas Axe exploits the NIH finding for human beings and for bugs. For example, when fruit flies are evolving a different binding site, this can happen in a few million years only if the intermediary stages are assumed to be 100% fit as compared to the original functioning binding site. But using the NIH methodology, if only a 5% reduction in fitness is presumed, fruit flies will take 400 million years to evolve a changed binding site. And of course, in 400 million years, Darwinists don't believe that only a single binding site has changed for a single bug, but that the entire evolution of all insects occurred. Yet there's another nail still...

* Information is Not Physical: Bob and Fred also offer their own two proofs that information is not physical...
- Bob: transmitting data via fiber optic cable at the speed of light, and
- Fred: weighing a flash drive after deleting half the photos on it.
These two proofs demonstrate that Einstein was correct in that information is NOT physical. Also, this RSR show recalls that taking the arrangement of grains of sand on a beach and fully randomizing them (by letting kids play there for example) will not in any way prevent the beach from fulfilling its function as a beach, whereas fully randomizing the letters in an encyclopedia will destroy the encyclopedia's function. Many evolutionists refuse to acknowledge this simple statement of Shannon information theory because it is a threat to the belief that the extensive information required to form the first reproducing organism could not assemble by random chance.

…while matter can be arranged to represent data, data itself is not material. In 1936 Einstein famouslywrote, "the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible," and in 1944, remarking about Russell, he described the ability to get from matter to ideas as a "gulf–logically unbridgeable," which some scientists and linguists refer to as Einstein's Gulf… [See more at rsr.org/math.]

* No Symbolism in the Laws of Physics: Regardless of how broad and deep mankind develops its understanding of physics and information, it will never discover a symbolic logic function in the laws of physics. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.

* Not a Single Journal Paper EVER: Here is another way of stating this: Not a single journal paper has ever proposed even a vague theoretical method of how a scheme of biological information could have arisen by material processes. Such a scheme minimally includes three parts: 1) a protein or other life-enabling device 2) an information molecule containing the instructions for building that protein, and 3) a mechanism that implements the instructions. Materialists cannot answer this question because it is unanswerable. Consider the inventor of ASCII who arbitrarily assigned the letter "A" to the number 65, and explained that the system should render an "A" whenever it encounters the value 65. A scheme is not a physical system and thus cannot arise by materialistic means. Atheists have been unwilling to appreciate this fundamental reality because it is an enormous threat to their belief system. (See this in our Pepperdine video just below.)

* Trading Genesis: No Atheistic Theory of Origins Even Exists. Atheists say that God doesn't exist, but what actually doesn't exist is an atheistic theory of origins. See Bob Enyart detail this in his talk in Malibu on the Pepperdine University campus: